Overseers of Poor of Tewksbury v. Overseers of Poor of Washington

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Overseers of Poor of Tewksbury v. Overseers of Poor of Washington

6 N.J.L. 216

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided September 15, 1822·Published

Opinion

Kirkpatrick, G. J.

I think we have determined that there ought to be a notice to the overseers against whom [218]*218the distress is to be issued. It is contrary to the whole policy of our law that they should be condemned unheard.'

Eord, J. It stands on the same footing as an order of ■filiation; the act does not require notice, but it has always been held necessary.

Rossell, J. concurred.

Let the order of the justices for issuing the distress warrant, and, also, the said distress warrant be quashed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Kirkpatrick, G. J.

I think we have determined that there ought to be a notice to the overseers against whom [218]*218the distress is to be issued. It is contrary to the whole policy of our law that they should be condemned unheard.'

Eord, J. It stands on the same footing as an order of ■filiation; the act does not require notice, but it has always been held necessary.

Rossell, J. concurred.

Let the order of the justices for issuing the distress warrant, and, also, the said distress warrant be quashed.

Overseers of Poor of Tewksbury v. Overseers of Poor of Washington, 6 N.J.L. 216 (N.J. 1822).

Pincite

6 N.J.L. 216 (Overseers of Poor of Tewksbury v. Overseers of Poor of Washington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.